Pedro Pierluisi

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the bipartisan amendment offered by my colleague Ms. Hahn from California and Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, which would increase the appropriation provided in the underlying bill for Army Corps operations and maintenance dredging of harbors by $57.6 million. This amendment would fulfill the obligations made in the recently-enacted Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-121), an important one of them being the increase in expenditure of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as a way to adequately address maintenance needs at our nation's ports and harbors. Specifically, I support adoption of this amendment because it would position the Army Corps to be more responsive to the maintenance needs at Puerto Rico's six federally-authorized harbors, which are located in Arecibo, Fajardo, Mayaguez, Ponce, San Juan and Yabucoa. Through these harbors, Puerto Rico engages in domestic trade with U.S. states and territories and international trade with foreign countries. In 2012, the San Juan and Ponce harbors alone accounted for over 13 million tons in trade of commodities, making them some of the busiest ports in the United States. Access to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain these harbors at their federally-authorized depth levels is crucial to the expanding $103 billion trade industry in Puerto Rico. Maintenance and development of the harbors is essential to Puerto Rico's waterborne economy and its ultimate its viability as a commercial maritime waypoint hub between North and South America. Additionally, I take this opportunity to note that the underlying bill includes an appropriation of $800,000 specifically for maintenance dredging of the harbor in San Juan--which ranked as the 52nd busiest port in the nation in 2012 in terms of tonnage of total cargo handled. I also appreciate the Committee's expressed concern in its report accompanying the bill about the accessibility of navigation maintenance funds for small, remote and subsistence harbors and waterways across the United States. I believe the Army Corps should review its criteria for allocating harbor maintenance funds in order to develop a more reasonable and equitable allocation for small, remote or subsistence harbors. The current criteria results in those ports with the heaviest cargo traffic being allocated funding from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The criteria presents a paradoxical situation in that harbors that are not maintained to their federally-authorized depth become less available and less attractive over time to the berthing of maritime vessels. As a consequence, the diminishing number of port calls reduces cargo volume, which in turn makes the harbor less likely to receive maintenance funding. If the overall Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund allocation criteria are not realigned to better account for maintenance needs at smaller harbors, designing a separate budgeting mechanism or criteria to address these needs would be warranted. In Puerto Rico, for example, although the San Juan Harbor has been given regular maintenance attention in recent years and the harbor in Arecibo recently received maintenance dredging as a result of sediment buildup associated with a hurricane, the island's four other federally- authorized harbors have received minimal to no HMTF funds for much- needed maintenance dredging. Potential improvements to these harbors would be beneficial to the economic revitalization of some of Puerto Rico's 44 coastal municipalities. For these reasons, I support the renewed call for the Army Corps to update Congress on its review of criteria used for determining which navigation projects at harbors across the United States are funded. In closing, I urge adoption of this amendment. It is through increased expenditure in 2015 by the Army Corps of Engineers of funds available through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund that the domestic economy will be strengthened, and that our constituents who rely upon the free, timely and safe flow of goods at our nation's ports will be supported. This amendment gives us an opportunity to better ensure operations at the nation's federally-authorized harbors--including the harbors in Puerto Rico--can reach their full capacity.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to enable DOD to remove unexploded ordnance from certain areas on the island of Culebra, Puerto Rico, which was used as a military training range for decades. Under the FUDS program, the Army Corps of Engineers is decontaminating limited areas of Culebra. However, DOD asserts that a 1974 law prohibits the use of Federal funds to decontaminate land that constituted the bombardment zone. Approximately 400 acres of this land were conveyed to the government of Puerto Rico in 1982 for use as a public park. DOD contends that the 1974 law has not been superseded by Federal cleanup authorities enacted in 1986. As a result of this rigid interpretation, Culebra is the only former defense site of several thousand across the United States that DOD claims it is barred by statute from decontaminating. The resulting state of affairs poses a direct threat to public safety, since this land encompasses popular beaches, campgrounds and a trail. In a congressionally-required study, DOD reported that there have been many incidents where members of the public encountered unexploded munitions that could have caused serious harm. My amendment would authorize the Corps of Engineers to decontaminate those areas within the 400-acre parcel where the risk to public safety is the greatest. It will ensure that the 1974 Act ceases to serve as an obstacle to implementation of current Federal policy, which provides that the federal government is responsible for cleaning lands that were contaminated as a result of its actions. The amendment ensures that Culebra will be treated the same--no better and no worse--than other formerly used defense sites. The U.S. citizens living in Culebra sacrificed so that our military could receive the training it required. Congress, in turn, should now take this small step to enable DOD to remove unexploded munitions from the island. I thank the Committee leadership and, in particular, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman, for working with me on this issue.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1726, a bill that would award the Congressional Gold Medal to the United States Army's 65th Infantry Regiment in recognition of its pioneering military service, devotion to duty, and many acts of valor in the face of adversity. The regiment was composed largely of soldiers from the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico; and members of the unit are called the Borinqueneers, which is derived from the Taino word for Puerto Rico, meaning the ``land of the brave lord.'' Since the term was first used over 60 years ago, coined by members of the regiment on their way to Korea, it has become synonymous with honor, courage, redemption, and pride. I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to Mr. Posey of Florida. Working with him on a bipartisan basis to move this bill forward has been a pleasure. I know that Congressman Posey, like me, feels a profound sense of responsibility to these veterans and their families. The surviving members of the regiment are in the twilight of their lives, and so we hope our colleagues in the House and in the Senate, acting on behalf of a grateful Nation, will see fit to honor the Borinqueneers while these humble heroes still walk among us. Mr. Speaker, we are honored that the oldest living Borinqueneer, Don Leonardo Martinez, who is 96 years young, is here with us today. Of course Congressman Posey and I are not on this mission alone. We are working shoulder to shoulder with an army of individuals and organizations from Puerto Rico and the States. These advocates have been inspired by the legacy of the regiment and are mindful of its special contribution to the tapestry of American life. Their campaign on behalf of the Borinqueneers has been exceptional. I want to publicly thank each and every one of them because they are the heart and soul of this movement. I must highlight, in particular, the tireless efforts of the Borinqueneer Congressional Gold Medal Alliance, led by National Chairman Frank Medina. To place the achievements of the regiment in context, it is important to understand that for generations--from World War I, almost a century ago, to Afghanistan today--American citizens from Puerto Rico have built and maintained a rich record of military service. If you visit any U.S. military installation, you will see men and women from Puerto Rico fighting to keep this Nation safe, strong, and free. They may speak English with an accent, like I do, but they are just as devoted to this country as their fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines from the States. If you need proof, there is a frame on my office wall containing photographs of the servicemembers from Puerto Rico that have fallen since 9/11--row after row of young faces, sometimes smiling and sometimes stern, usually posing in their dress uniforms against the backdrop of the American flag. In a book he wrote about Puerto Rico, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh observed that: Historically, Puerto Rico has ranked alongside the top five States in terms of per capita military service. In the forward to that book, former President George H.W. Bush noted: This patriotic service and sacrifice of Americans from Puerto Rico touched me all the more deeply for the very fact they have served with such devotion, even while denied a vote for the President and Members of Congress who determine when, where, and how they are asked to defend our freedoms. No unit better epitomizes Puerto Rico's distinguished tradition of military service than the 65th Infantry Regiment, which was constituted just after World War I, participated in an honorable--albeit limited-- fashion during World War II, and came into its own during the Korean war, earning admiration for its outstanding combat performance. Like society more generally, the U.S. military in the 1950s was different than it is today, and attitudes toward ethnic minorities could be harsh. The men of the regiment not only had to fight the enemy on the battlefield, which they did with bravery and skill, but they also had to overcome negative stereotypes held by some of their commanders and comrades. For example, then-Colonel William Harris, who commanded the regiment during the early stages of the Korean war, later recalled that he had been reluctant to assume command of the unit because of prejudice within the military but that his experience eventually led him to regard the Borinqueneers as ``the best damn soldiers that I had ever seen.'' Such sentiments would be expressed by many others who witnessed the regiment in action, including General Douglas MacArthur, who wrote the following in 1951: The Puerto Ricans forming the ranks of the gallant 65th Infantry on the battlefields of Korea . . . give daily testament to their invincible loyalty to the United States . . . They are writing a brilliant record of achievement in battle; and I am proud, indeed, to have them in this command. I wish that we might have many more like them. The experience of the Borinqueneers during the Korean war was perhaps best encapsulated in September 2000, at a ceremony held at Arlington National Cemetery in honor of the regiment, by secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, who observed that the Borinqueneers ``fought with rare courage even as they endured misfortune and injustice.'' The Borinqueneers earned many unit-level awards for their service in Korea, including two Presidential Unit Citations. Soldiers in the regiment earned many individual awards, including nine Distinguished Service Crosses, about 250 Silver Stars, over 600 Bronze Stars, and more than 2,700 Purple Hearts. In March of this year, President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor-- the military's highest individual award for bravery--to four deceased American soldiers from Puerto Rico, including Master Sergeant Juan Negron, who became the first Borinqueneer to be accorded this honor. Moreover, in recent years, the achievements of the regiment have been recognized in many ways. A multitude of State legislatures have approved resolutions in their honor, while numerous parks, streets, and monuments bear the regiment's name. I hope Congress will pay tribute to the Borinqueneers by conferring upon them the Congressional Gold Medal. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, this week, the GAO published a report about the fiscal impact of Puerto Rico statehood on the Federal Government. In a 2012 referendum, a majority of voters in Puerto Rico said they didn't want Puerto Rico to remain a territory, and more voters favored statehood than any other option. In January, at my initiative, a law was enacted to provide funding for the first federally-sponsored vote in Puerto Rico's history. Meanwhile, in the past year, Puerto Rico's longstanding economic problems have devolved into a crisis. Every week, 1,000 of my constituents move to the States in search of opportunity and equality. Thus, the GAO has released its report at a time when island residents are voting for statehood--at the ballot box and with their feet--in unprecedented numbers. The momentum in favor of statehood continues to build with this report, which supports the conclusion that statehood will be beneficial to Puerto Rico and to the U.S. as a whole. The report confirms that statehood will enhance the quality of life in Puerto Rico. As a territory, Puerto Rico is treated unequally under key Federal spending and tax credit programs. As a State, it will receive equal treatment. Based on the GAO's analysis and taking into account programs the GAO did not examine, it can be calculated that statehood will inject an additional $10 billion into Puerto Rico's economy each year. This underscores the scope and severity of the discrimination Puerto Rico faces as a territory. The report also alleviates the concern that statehood would have an adverse impact on the U.S. Treasury. As the GAO explains, new Federal outlays to Puerto Rico will be significantly counterbalanced by new Federal revenues generated from the island, which could amount to $7 billion a year. As Puerto Rico prospers, collections will increase further. The report, thus, reinforces that statehood, which is so plainly in Puerto Rico's interest, is also in the national interest. This Nation will benefit when Puerto Rico's economy is strong, when its residents don't need to move to the States to achieve their dreams or vote for their national leaders, when individuals and businesses on the island flourish, and when the tax base expands. The U.S. will profit from the state of Puerto Rico's success, just as it currently pays an economic and a moral price for the territory's shortcomings. The reaction to the report from politicians in Puerto Rico who favor the status quo has been dishonest. Their strategy is clear: if you cannot convince the public, try to confuse the public. For example, they claim the report concludes that hardworking island residents would have a large Federal tax liability under statehood. The report says no such thing, and the assertion is false. A typical household in Puerto Rico will pay the same or less in total taxes under statehood than it pays now due to the application of Federal tax credits and the ability of the Puerto Rico Government to reduce its high local rates once it no longer needs to finance a disproportionate share of public services. In any event, this inaccurate argument shows disrespect for the people of Puerto Rico, who will be proud to assume both the rights and responsibilities of statehood. Throughout history, men and women have fought and fallen for equality and dignity. These principles are priceless. My colleagues who requested the GAO report should now schedule a hearing on it. Seventy-five days have passed since the enactment of the law authorizing Puerto Rico to hold a federally-sponsored referendum, and 132 Members of Congress have sponsored my legislation that calls for a referendum on Puerto Rico's admission as a State, which requires Federal action if a majority of voters chooses statehood. If the Governor of Puerto Rico believes his claim that the GAO report is somehow damaging to statehood, he should have the courage of his convictions to conduct a statehood admission vote with the available Federal funds without delay. His inaction speaks louder than his words.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, Vieques and Culebra are two island municipalities of Puerto Rico. Each is home to beautiful beaches, to rich animal and plant life, and to warm, welcoming people. For decades, the two islands were used as military training ranges. The U.S. citizens living in Vieques and Culebra were required to make tremendous sacrifices to ensure the readiness of our Armed Forces and to enhance our national defense. Although Vieques and Culebra are no longer used for training purposes, both islands bear the scars of their past. Some of those scars are easy to see, like the impact of bombing on the once pristine landscape or like the threat that unexploded bombs in the ground and surrounding waters currently pose to the safety of residents and visitors. Other scars might be more difficult to discern, like the effect that bombing-related contamination may have had on public health, particularly in Vieques. The Department of Defense is currently conducting decontamination operations in both Vieques and Culebra. The cleanup of Vieques is being conducted by the Navy, while the cleanup of Culebra is being carried out by the Corps of Engineers. Several days ago, I wrote a letter to the Secretary of Defense about DOD's responsibilities with respect to Vieques and Culebra. The letter, which was signed by 16 of my colleagues in the House and Senate, makes three specific requests. First, although many years have passed since the military stopped conducting training exercises on Culebra and Vieques, there are still meaningful gaps in information about the types and amounts of munitions used on both islands. My constituents have a compelling interest in knowing which types of weapons were used, where they were used, and in what volume they were used. Congress agrees. As a result of bicameral efforts, the report accompanying the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act encourages DOD to make public all of its historical documents related to its training activities on both islands. Our letter to the Secretary requests an update about how DOD intends to implement this Congressional language and strongly urges DOD to collect, organize, and publish the relevant documents on the Internet in a single location. Second, the report accompanying the 2014 Defense Appropriations Act encourages DOD to accelerate cleanup efforts on Vieques. Therefore, my colleagues and I also urged the Secretary of Defense to implement this Congressional guidance by allocating the funding necessary to complete the cleanup of Vieques as rapidly as possible. Finally, the letter reminds the Secretary that there is a serious public safety threat in Culebra that requires resolution. As a result of a rigid legal interpretation, DOD refuses to fund the cleanup of a 400-acre parcel that formerly served as the bombardment zone and which now has popular beaches, pedestrian walkways, and campgrounds. This is unacceptable. Since 1995, there have been over 70 incidents in which members of the public have encountered unexploded bombs in this part of Culebra that could have caused them great harm. Last March, a young girl visiting a Culebra beach suffered burns after she picked up an artillery shell containing white phosphorous. Earlier this year, local authorities had to close the same Culebra beach when a 100-pound unexploded bomb was discovered underwater close to shore. I have filed multiple bills to require DOD to fund the cleanup of this parcel and to remove this public safety threat, but DOD has opposed my efforts. The letter urges DOD to reconsider its position in this matter. The use of Vieques and Culebra as training ranges may have ceased, but the legacy of such use must be addressed by DOD. Working with my colleagues, I will continue to do everything within my power to ensure that DOD fulfills its legal and moral responsibilities.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the junior Senator from Mississippi and the junior Senator from West Virginia spoke on the Senate floor about Puerto Rico's political status. Because Puerto Rico is a territory and not a State, we have no Senators who can respond to these two Senators on the Senate floor. So, as the only elected representative in Congress of the 3.6 million U.S. citizens that live in Puerto Rico, I respond now. The Senators discussed the referendum that was held in Puerto Rico in November 2012. However, neither Senator mentioned that, on the first question in that referendum, 54 percent of voters said they do not want Puerto Rico to be a territory, which means that my constituents no longer consent to the current status. Likewise, neither Senator noted that, during a Senate hearing on the referendum held last August, the senior Democrat and the senior Republican on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources agreed that it was indisputable and clear that the people of Puerto Rico oppose the current territory status. Finally, in their remarks yesterday, neither Senator acknowledged that in the referendum, statehood received more votes than any other status option, including the current status. In short, the Senators' discussion of the historic referendum was clearly deficient. In addition, both Senators expressed opposition to the Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act, which I introduced last year in the House and which was introduced earlier this month in the Senate. The two Senators have every right to oppose this legislation, which calls for an up-or- down vote in Puerto Rico on the territory's admission as a State and outlines the steps the Federal Government would take if a majority of voters favor admission. But to argue, as the Senators did, that the bill excludes other options other than statehood makes no sense. A binary vote, by definition, is not exclusive. Those who support statehood can vote ``yes,'' and those who oppose it can vote ``no.'' This was precisely the format of the votes that led to Hawaii and Alaska becoming States. I ask the Senators: Do you believe those earlier votes were unfair or exclusionary? In any event, there are now 132 Members of the House and Senate who have cosponsored the Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act and, therefore, disagree with these two Senators' characterization of the bill. Both Senators sought to contrast their opposition to the Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act with their apparent support for a Puerto Rico-related appropriation that the President included in his fiscal year 2014 budget request at my urging, and that recently became law. Under this appropriation, funding would be provided for the first federally sponsored vote in Puerto Rico's history, to be held among one or more options that are consistent with U.S. law and policy and that would ``resolve'' the status issue. Contrary to the suggestion made by both Senators, a vote on Puerto Rico's admission as a State is a perfectly valid and logical way to structure the federally sponsored plebiscite to be held pursuant to this appropriation. Both Senators also expressed the view that the status debate is a ``distraction'' from efforts to tackle Puerto Rico's economic and fiscal challenges. This argument is familiar, but it is false. The reality is that Puerto Rico's economic problems are structural in nature and are rooted in the territory's unequal and undemocratic status. No wonder my constituents are relocating to the States in unprecedented numbers. I look forward to the day when the men, women, and children I represent have the same rights and responsibilities as their fellow U.S. citizens residing in the States that the two Senators represent. We do not seek special treatment. We seek equality, and we intend to achieve it.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, over the last several months, the press has been filled with stories about the severe economic problems in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico. These economic problems have aggravated social problems like crime, have generated anxiety for individuals and institutions that have invested in Puerto Rico's bonds, and have caused island residents to relocate to the 50 States in unprecedented numbers. The statistics are staggering. In recent years, Puerto Rico's population has fallen by more than 4 percent, while the number of Puerto Ricans living in the States has increased by over 45 percent. As Puerto Rico's representative in Congress, it pains me to read media accounts of the island's troubles, especially because I know that my constituents are just as capable and industrious as their fellow citizens in any other jurisdiction. Puerto Rico has enormous potential, but the reality is that this potential is not being fulfilled. Although the island's problems have certainly grown worse in recent months, it is critical for policymakers and the American public to understand that these problems are not of recent vintage. To the contrary, for at least four decades, Puerto Rico's economic performance--and by extension, quality of life on the island--has been far worse than any State, according to every indicator, including unemployment, average household income, and the ratio of government debt to economic production. In other words, Puerto Rico's difficulties have endured in more or less the same form, regardless of who holds power in Washington and San Juan and irrespective of the public policies they formulate. To be sure, fiscal mismanagement at the local level and insufficient attention at the Federal level have both been factors contributing to Puerto Rico's problems, but the record clearly establishes that they are not the main factor. What, then, is the principle source of Puerto Rico's longstanding woes? In a recent editorial, The Washington Post correctly identified the culprit, noting that the territory's economic problems are ``structural--traceable, ultimately, to its muddled political status.'' Curiously, The Post then asserted that ``there will be time enough to debate'' the status issue later and that Puerto Rico, for the time being, should concentrate on fixing its finances. As I observed in a letter to The Post's editor, this is like a doctor recommending medicine to alleviate a patient's symptoms but doing nothing to treat the underlying disease. As long as Puerto Rico remains a territory, deprived of equal treatment under critical Federal spending and tax credit programs, forced to borrow heavily to make up the difference, and lacking the ability to vote for the President and Members of Congress who make our national laws, the island will be in a position merely to manage, rather than surmount, its economic problems. This is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from decades of empirical evidence. A majority of my constituents understand this, which is why they voted to reject territory status in a referendum held 1 year ago. The Obama administration recognizes this as well, which is why it proposed the first federally sponsored status vote in Puerto Rico's history to resolve the issue once and for all. And, finally, Members of Congress from both parties comprehend this, which is why 125 of them have cosponsored legislation I introduced that provides for an up-or-down vote in Puerto Rico on the territory's admission as a state and outlines the steps the Federal Government will take if a majority of voters favor admission. There are many reasons to oppose Puerto Rico's territory status, which is unequal, undemocratic, and un-American. One of the most important reasons why Puerto Rico must discard this status in favor of either statehood or nationhood is because the current status has failed--and will continue to fail--to provide the island's 3.6 million American citizens with the economic opportunities and the quality of life they deserve. Those who refuse to acknowledge this fundamental truth for ideological reasons are doing a great disservice to the people of Puerto Rico. They are on the wrong side of history.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, Monday was Veterans Day, when our Nation pays tribute to those who have served honorably in the Armed Forces. Today, I rise to express my gratitude to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines from Puerto Rico, both those who are living and those who have left us. Since World War I almost a century ago to Afghanistan today, American citizens from Puerto Rico have built a rich record of military service. If you visit any U.S. base, you will see warriors from Puerto Rico fighting to keep this Nation safe, strong, and free. They serve as officers and enlisted personnel; as special operators; in infantry, artillery, and armored units; as pilots and aviation technicians; in intelligence; on ships and submarines; in combat support positions; and in every military specialty. In his book, ``Puerto Rico's Future: A Time to Decide,'' former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh observed: Historically, Puerto Rico has ranked alongside the top five States in terms of per capita military service. In the forward to that book, former President George H.W. Bush noted: This patriotic service and sacrifice of Americans from Puerto Rico touched me all the more deeply for the very fact they have served with such devotion, even while denied a vote for the President and Members of Congress who determine when, where, and how they are asked to defend our freedoms. As I address this Chamber, men and women from Puerto Rico are serving in harm's way in Afghanistan and other locations. Since the attacks of 9/11, island residents have deployed about 35,000 times in overseas contingency operations. Many have deployed on multiple occasions. Each time they go, they leave behind spouses, children, and parents. As veterans will tell you, military life requires enormous sacrifice from their loved ones, those quiet heroes who support our uniformed personnel who must live and work in their absence and who pray for their safe return. On Veterans Day, we honor not only those who fought, but their families, as well. There is a frame on my office wall containing photographs of servicemembers from Puerto Rico that have fallen in the last 12 years. I often look at those photos, row after row of young faces, usually posing in their dress uniforms against the backdrop of the American flag. Those images make me sad, but they also give me strength. They inspire me to keep working for my people. They remind me what courage is and what sacrifice means. And they help me remember why representing Puerto Rico in Congress is the greatest honor I have ever known. I have met many veterans from Puerto Rico. I have found that they value deeds over words. They expect their elected leaders to produce results, or at least to work tirelessly towards that end. I am proud of the record we have compiled on behalf of veterans from Puerto Rico. We have obtained funding to renovate the VA hospital in San Juan, to improve existing clinics and build new clinics throughout the island, and to provide vehicles so that residents of our State veterans home can visit their families and travel to medical appointments. We also achieved Puerto Rico's inclusion in a Federal initiative to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans. And I am working to honor a military unit that perhaps best exemplifies the service that residents of Puerto Rico have rendered to this Nation. Congressman Bill Posey of Florida and I have introduced legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the 65th Infantry Regiment known as the Borinqueneers, a unit composed mostly of soldiers from Puerto Rico that overcame discrimination and won admiration for their performance in the Korean war. Our bill has nearly 160 bipartisan cosponsors, and there is a companion bill in the Senate that has also garnered strong support. I hope all my colleagues will join me in honoring this special group of veterans. This Veterans Day, I renewed my commitment to fight for the men and women who have fought so valiantly for us, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for their service. I do so again today.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, Monday marked the 10th anniversary of the passing of Luis Ferre. I rise this morning to pay tribute to this giant of a man whom The New York Times called the ``dominant force in the politics, economy and culture of Puerto Rico'' for much of the 20th century. In a real sense, Don Luis personified his beloved Puerto Rico, embodying both its progress and its struggles. He was born in Ponce in 1904, a few years after Puerto Rico became a U.S. territory; was a teenager when island residents were granted American citizenship in 1917; served as a delegate to the convention that drafted Puerto Rico's local constitution in the early 1950s; was elected as the island's governor in 1968; served as a member of the Puerto Rico Senate, including as its president, in the late 1970s and early 1980s; and remained engaged in public life as a revered elder statesman well beyond his formal retirement from politics. Don Luis lived to age 99, but it was the fullness of his life, not its length, that is so remarkable. Trained as an engineer at MIT and as a classical pianist at the New England Conservatory of Music, Ferre was a true renaissance man. He loved ideas, intellectual debate and culture, founding the renowned Ponce Museum of Art; but he was also at home in the practical world of business, taking a small company and transforming it into one of Puerto Rico's most successful conglomerates. He published a newspaper, now called El Nuevo Dia, which is run by his grandchildren, and has the largest circulation of any periodical on the island. Don Luis was also a committed philanthropist, who took to heart the biblical axiom: to whom much is given, much is expected. In 1991, Ferre was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian honor, by President George H.W. Bush, who called Ferre ``a public servant of the first order'' and an ``extraordinary leader in the life of Puerto Rico.'' On a personal level, Ferre refuted the notion that great men are seldom good men. Like any effective leader, he was tough when he needed to be, but he was also kind, warm and generous, inspiring affection and loyalty as well as respect. Don Luis was a gentleman through and through. He was ``old school'' in the best sense of the term. Few, if any, Puerto Ricans have accomplished as much in their lives as Don Luis or have left behind such a lasting legacy. A proud Republican and founder of the local New Progressive Party, Ferre did not live to see his goal of statehood for Puerto Rico realized, but he encouraged and mentored a new generation of leaders who understand that Puerto Rico's ``colonial status,'' as Don Luis called it, deprives island residents of political and civil rights, hinders their economic progress and harms their quality of life. As I and other pro-statehood advocates work to perfect Puerto Rico's union with the U.S., we are guided by Don Luis' example and draw strength from his memory. Ferre once described himself as revolutionary in his ideas, liberal in his objectives, and conservative in his methods. Thanks to Don Luis and others, statehood is no longer a revolutionary idea. It has become the predominant force in Puerto Rico politics while support for the status quo continues to decline and support for separate nationhood remains slight. Last November, a clear majority of voters in Puerto Rico rejected territory status, and more voters expressed a preference for statehood than for any other status option. I wish Don Luis had been alive to witness this historic event. When Puerto Rico does become a state, as I know it will, we will look back upon Luis Ferre's life and say that this man, as much as any other man, was responsible for this crowning achievement.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I support the en bloc amendment, which includes an amendment I filed. Since 1986, the other U.S. territories have been given partial relief--up to $200,000--from the local cost-sharing requirements for Army Corps projects. The bill increases this amount to account for inflation. My amendment extends this waiver to the territory of Puerto Rico. There are about 20 authorized flood protection, harbor, and other Army Corps projects pending in Puerto Rico, some of which are stalled due to the constrained ability of the local government to provide its share of project costs. The two reasons that justified enactment of this waiver for the other territories three decades ago also justify its extension to Puerto Rico today. Puerto Rico is particularly vulnerable to natural disasters like hurricanes and floods. In 2011 alone, there were several federally declared disasters in Puerto Rico, with FEMA assistance totaling $95 million. In addition, Puerto Rico faces severe economic and fiscal challenges which are in large part due to the fact that, as a territory, Puerto Rico is shortchanged under key Federal programs. I thank the chairmen and the ranking members for recognizing that critical Army Corps projects in Puerto Rico should not be deferred or deauthorized because of the unique circumstances in the territory.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the birthday of the late Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa, the father of the statehood movement in Puerto Rico, I rise to update my colleagues on the progress that has been made to resolve the territory's political status. Last November, Puerto Rico held a referendum. As I described in a floor speech the following week, the results show that a majority of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico do not support the current territory status, a supermajority favor statehood among the three alternative options, and more voters want statehood than any other option, including the current status. These results are now part of the historical record, and they cannot be dismissed or diminished by those who find them inconvenient. Now that American citizens living in an American territory have informed their national government, in a free and fair vote, that they do not consent to a political status that deprives them of the most basic democratic rights, it is incumbent upon the Federal Government to take appropriate action in response. For the President and Congress to do otherwise would be to contravene the principles that have made this country a light to the world. Today, I can report that positive steps have been taken. In April, the administration requested an appropriation of $2.5 million, which would be provided to the Puerto Rico Elections Commission to conduct the first federally-funded status vote in the territory's history, with the specific purpose of resolving this issue. The administration's action was favorably received by Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, who rarely find common ground. Earlier this month, thanks to the leadership of Congressmen Wolf, Fattah, and Serrano, that funding was approved by the Appropriations Committee, confirming that the effort to secure fair treatment for Puerto Rico is not, and should never become, a partisan issue. The committee's report endorses the conditions proposed by the administration stating that Federal funding will not be obligated until DOJ has certified that the ballot and voter education materials are compatible with U.S. laws and policies, thereby ensuring that the vote will deal with one or more status options that can actually be implemented and that would settle the issue. I will continue to fight for the approval of this appropriation by the full House and for its retention in any conference negotiation with the Senate. There is additional progress to report on another front in this struggle. In May, I introduced stand-alone legislation that proceeds from the indisputable premise that statehood obtained more votes than any other option in the November referendum. The bill outlines the rights and responsibilities of statehood and asks voters in Puerto Rico whether they accept those terms. If a majority says ``yes,'' the bill provides for the President to submit legislation to admit Puerto Rico as a State after a transition period. Two months after its introduction, this bill already enjoys support from 100 Members of Congress from both parties and from every region of this country despite the predictable opposition of the status quo party in Puerto Rico and its allies in Congress. I always find it ironic when some of my colleagues from the States, who, along with their constituents, enjoy all the benefits of statehood, seek to prevent my constituents from exercising those same rights and responsibilities. I have concluded that these forces cannot be reasoned with. They must simply be defeated, and they will be. Next week, I will appear as a witness at a Senate hearing on the November referendum and the Federal response to that vote. Just as I told a United Nations committee last month, I will testify that I have faith that the Federal Government will fulfill its obligation to facilitate Puerto Rico's transition to a democratic and dignified status but that deeds, not words, are required. Much work remains to be done, and like any civil rights struggle, it will not be easy; but through our sound and steady action, we are closer than ever to finally realizing Dr. Barbosa's dream of equality for the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, this budget-neutral amendment, which I offer with Mr. Young of Alaska, would enable DOD to remove unexploded ordnance from land in Culebra, Puerto Rico, which was used as a military training range for seven decades. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing the Navy to cease operations in Culebra. A provision stated that the present bombardment area shall not be utilized for any purpose that would require decontamination at the expense of the United States. In 1982, the Federal Government conveyed land in Culebra to the Government of Puerto Rico, including a 400-acre parcel within the former bombardment area. The deed provided that, in accordance with the 1974 act, the Government of Puerto Rico would not hold the Federal Government liable for decontamination of the land. Four years later, in 1986, Congress enacted SARA, which amended the 1980 CERCLA law. SARA states that DOD is responsible for cleaning up contamination it caused on current and former military sites and established the Defense Environmental Restoration Program for DOD to carry out these responsibilities. That program is funded by the bill under consideration today. SARA directed DOD to clean up former defense sites conveyed to third parties prior to 1986. These sites are eligible for Federal funding, even though there were no specific authorities enabling their cleanup at the time they were decommissioned and conveyed. Nevertheless, DOD contends that the 1974 law and the 1982 deed that tracks it prohibits the use of Federal funds to decontaminate the 400-acre parcel on Culebra, and these prohibitions were not superceded by SARA. As a result of this restrictive interpretation, Culebra is the only former defense site in the Nation that DOD contends it is barred by statute from decontaminating. This makes no sense. The 1974 act and the 1982 deed may have been consistent with Federal policy at that time since there was no legal framework in place that would have enabled the Federal Government to pay for the cleanup of the conveyed property. However, they're now squarely at odds with Federal policy that has been in place for more than 25 years under SARA. Accordingly, there's no principled basis to treat Culebra differently from thousands of other former defense sites conveyed out of Federal hands prior to 1986 which the Federal Government is obligated to decontaminate. The status quo poses a threat to human safety since this parcel contains beaches, walkways, and campgrounds visited by over 300,000 people a year. A recent DOD report found that since 1995, there have been 70 incidents in which members of the public encountered unexploded munitions that could have caused great harm. In fact, in March of this year, a young girl visiting a Culebra beach suffered burns after she picked up an artillery shell containing white phosphorous. The FBI responded and found six other munitions which it detonated and removed. This potentially tragic incident underscores the need for congressional action. This amendment would ensure that the 1974 act ceases to function as an obstacle to implementation of current Federal policy, as reflected in CERCLA and SARA. The amendment simply ensures that Culebra will receive the same treatment as other former defense sites in the FUDS program. The citizens in Culebra sacrificed so our military could receive the training it needed. Congress, in turn, should take this small step to remove the barrier that is preventing DOD from addressing safety hazards that remain on the island. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI. I look forward to working with the majority.

Mr. PIERLUISI. That's absolutely right. So I will withdraw my amendment. But let me just say that, again, this is one property. It's only one property out of thousands of properties facing these circumstances. So I hope we can work it out. It's not going to be costly. It makes sense to clean it up. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Ms. Gabbard. This amendment establishes a coffee plant health initiative to be led by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with the goal of addressing the pressing needs of the coffee industry in the United States. The U.S. coffee industry is principally based in my district, Puerto Rico, and in the State of Hawaii, given that both jurisdictions offer natural conditions ideally suited for cultivation of the coffee crop. The industry in both Puerto Rico and Hawaii is increasingly threatened by a nonnative insect commonly known as the coffee berry borer or the Broca del Cafe in Spanish. This agricultural pest arrived in Puerto Rico in 2007 and in Hawaii in 2010. The insect has emerged as the primary threat facing the coffee industry, adversely impacting both the yield and the market value of coffee crops. The insect damages coffee plants by boring and depositing eggs into the berries. The larvae then hatch inside the berries and feed on the coffee beans, destroying them by creating holes. The Agricultural Research Service estimates that the coffee berry borer has caused over $500 million in losses worldwide. In Puerto Rico, production of coffee has recently fallen to an historic low, and the coffee berry borer is partially responsible. Annual coffee production in Puerto Rico is now valued at $21 million, less than half of what it was just five years ago and about a third of what it was at its peak in the mid-1990s. Most hard hit are the rural and mountainous municipalities where coffee has traditionally been a cash crop--Adjuntas, Lares, Utuado, Maricao, Jayuya, Yauco, Orocovis, Ciales, Las Marias, and San Sebastian. Why should we care about this situation? Because without a coffee berry borer-free and controlled environment in which to plant coffee trees, our agricultural economies in Puerto Rico and Hawaii are in jeopardy. This means higher unemployment, reduced exports and increased reliance on imports. Simply put, we must protect the U.S. interests in this worldwide commodity. So research on the coffee berry borer should be made a high priority at the USDA. This amendment is relevant not only to residents of Puerto Rico and Hawaii, but also to millions of coffee consumers around the country, who should be able to enjoy American-made coffee, such as Puerto Rico's 58 gourmet brands or the world famous coffee from the Big Island in Hawaii. Economically speaking, the United States benefits if we can increase the worldwide market share and quality of coffee that is produced in Puerto Rico and in Hawaii. The latest statistics available reveal that my constituents consume about 30 million pounds of coffee each year. Local production in Puerto Rico, though, is roughly 10 million pounds, leaving 20 million to be imported--typically from countries in the Caribbean and Central America. Since the berry borer emerged as a threat in Puerto Rico and Hawaii, the local governments in these two jurisdictions have worked diligently with farmers and the extension agents of our land grant universities to control the spread of the insect and to mitigate its impact. However, more must be done. Now that the insect is affecting more than just one jurisdiction, a Federal response is especially appropriate. The amendment requires USDA to develop and provide science-based tools and treatments to combat the coffee berry borer and to establish area-wide integrated pest management programs in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and anywhere else in the U.S. that the coffee berry borer may affect. USDA would be authorized to collaborate with the land-grant universities of Puerto Rico and Hawaii, as well as with the state governments and outside organizations, to carry out scientific research and to develop and implement the integrated pest management programs. For years, USDA has sponsored applied research targeted toward the Nation's most challenging agricultural pests and diseases. Targeted research has spanned the range of commodities and crops. The needs in tropical and subtropical agriculture are many, and the needs facing our coffee industry are pressing. Cutting edge research continues to be conducted at the U.S. Tropical Agriculture Research Station in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, and at the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center in Hilo, Hawaii, by a cadre of dedicated scientists, technicians, and agronomists. This amendment is designed to buttress their mission and to give them the authority in law they need to expand their work to help local producers. The amendment also improves the capacity of the land-grant universities to address the problems presented by the coffee berry borer. Finally, I would note that the research conducted at the ARS research stations and by the land-grant universities in Puerto Rico and Hawaii has national application. The techniques and technology developed there have proven their utility for increasing food production and controlling agricultural pests in the U.S. mainland. The research that stands to be enhanced through this amendment has a high probability of application benefiting agricultural production beyond coffee and beyond Puerto Rico and Hawaii. For these reasons, I urge adoption of the amendment and I thank my colleague, Ms. Gabbard, for her leadership in bringing it forward for consideration.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment last year, and it was adopted by voice vote. However, it was not included in the final Consolidated Appropriations Act enacted in March. The homicide rate in Puerto Rico is about three times higher than any State, and most of these murders are linked to the international drug trade. Appropriately, the Federal Government is allocating substantial resources to combat drug trafficking organizations operating in the Central American corridor and along the Southwest border. However, those organizations are adapting, returning to smuggling routes through the Caribbean region that were heavily utilized in the 1980s and 1990s. As a result, the Coast Guard seized or disrupted over 17,000 pounds of drugs in the vicinity of Puerto Rico in 2012, a 600 percent increase over the previous year. DEA seizures rose nearly 100 percent. CBP seizures were up nearly 40 percent. And in 2012, CBP seized more drugs in Puerto Rico than it did along the 180-mile border between Mexico and New Mexico. Meanwhile, the street price of drugs in Puerto Rico has decreased. This is a security problem of national scope, given that 80 percent of the drugs that enter Puerto Rico are subsequently transported to the U.S. mainland, where they destroy communities and lives. Through various bills and accompanying reports, the House Appropriations Committee has expressed a view that DHS and DOJ should prioritize counterdrug efforts in the U.S. Caribbean to respond to the current crisis. As a case in point, the report for the 2013 DHS appropriations bill stated that the public safety and security issues of the U.S. territories in the Caribbean must be a priority, and that the committee expects the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate resources, assets, and personnel to these jurisdictions accordingly. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is on the front lines of the counterdrug fight. The agency has hundreds of personnel stationed in Puerto Rico. My amendment is designed to address a problem that arose in fiscal year 2011, one that continues to compromise the ability of CBP to carry out its vital counterdrug mission in Puerto Rico. For over a century, Federal law has provided that the collection of certain duties and taxes in Puerto Rico by CBP or its predecessor agencies will be deposited in something called the Puerto Rico Trust Fund. Pursuant to the law and an implementing agreement between the Puerto Rico government and the Federal Government, a significant portion of that money is also used to fund certain Federal operations in Puerto Rico, including the maritime operations of CBP's Office of Air and Marine. For many years, this arrangement worked well enough. However, because of a shortfall in the Puerto Rico Trust Fund of $1.7 million due to reduced customs collections in fiscal year 2011, CBP closed a critical boat unit in San Juan that in 2010 seized over 7,000 pounds of illegal drugs. CBP took this drastic action because it has interpreted current Federal law to require that it use either the Trust Fund or general congressional appropriations to fund its operations, but not both. The amendment would simply give CBP the authority to supplement any funding from the Trust Fund with general appropriations made in this bill. This would make it easier for CBP to avoid any further reductions to its operations in Puerto Rico and, ideally, enable the agency to enhance those operations. The need for this amendment is underscored by the fact that the President's fiscal year 2014 budget predicts Trust Fund receipts of $98 million, which is $8.1 million less, or nearly 8 percent below Trust Fund receipts in fiscal year 2012. I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member to ensure that this amendment, if adopted, remains in the final bill this year and to continuing to work with them to ensure the Department of Homeland Security, including CBP, has the resources it needs to adequately address the border protection challenges and drug-related violence in Puerto Rico. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, today, joined by a bipartisan group of my colleagues, I am introducing the Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act. This bill is a response to the results of a referendum held in Puerto Rico in November. The first question asked voters if they support Puerto Rico's current territory status, which deprives my constituents of the most fundamental democratic rights. Fifty-four percent said ``no.'' The second question asked voters for their preference among the three alternatives to the current territory status. Of those who chose an option, 61 percent favored statehood. More voters said they want Puerto Rico to become a State than to maintain the current status, which is unprecedented. The White House has recognized the importance of the results, which is why the President is seeking an appropriation to conduct the first federally authorized vote in Puerto Rico's history, intended to ``resolve'' the territory's future status. The legislation I am filing today is consistent with the President's budget request and serves as a blueprint for how the vote conducted pursuant to that appropriation could be structured. After outlining the rights and responsibilities of statehood, the bill authorizes a ratification vote on whether Puerto Rico should be admitted into the Union as a State. If a majority of voters affirm Puerto Rico's desire for statehood, the bill provides for the President to submit legislation to admit Puerto Rico as a State after a reasonable transition period. The bill also expresses Congress's commitment to act on such legislation. Now, I want to speak directly to the men and women who voted for statehood in November. Our movement has become a predominant force in Puerto Rico. Every day, we grow stronger. Like you, I believe that justice delayed is justice denied. And, like you, I find it difficult to be patient. But we fight with our heads as well as our hearts. Perfecting our Union requires passion, but it also demands perseverance. There are no shortcuts on the path to statehood, and politicians who suggest there are are leading us to a dead end. The statehood movement is powerful because we are united by a single principle, the principle of equality. The November vote has fortified our spirit and renewed our sense of purpose. We will not shy away from a fight. History teaches that once a people have chosen democracy, self-government and progress, they are unlikely to reverse course. Rest assured, now that the people of Puerto Rico have withdrawn their consent to second-class citizenship, the question is not whether, but when, Puerto Rico will obtain equality through statehood. To my colleagues who represent States, I know you will respect my constituents for seeking the same rights and responsibilities as your constituents. This respect must take the form of concrete action. The U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico have made their choices heard, and they deserve a meaningful response from their national government. There is overwhelming evidence that territory status has affected Puerto Rico's political, economic, and social development; and it has become clear that the status quo does not serve the national interest, either. The U.S. succeeds when Puerto Rico succeeds; when the island is strong, stable and secure; and when its residents do not feel obligated to relocate to the States to achieve their dreams. From the U.S. perspective, a robust and resilient State of Puerto Rico would advance the national interest. The position of every President since Harry Truman has been that their administration would accept whatever status choice is made by a majority of Puerto Rico's voters. The U.S. Government is a champion of democracy and self-determination around the world, and it must adhere to those principles with respect to its own citizens. This is essentially true in light of the service that generations of men and women from Puerto Rico have rendered to this Nation, most notably in the Armed Forces, but in so many other ways as well. In a very real sense, Puerto Rico has earned the right to be equal, and equal we will become. Puerto Rico has been called the shining star of the Caribbean. The time has come for our star to shine, alongside the others, on the Flag of the United States of America.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, today Congressman Bill Posey of Florida and I will introduce bipartisan legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the 65th Infantry Regiment, a famed U.S. Army unit know as the Borinqueneers composed almost entirely of soldiers from the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico that overcame discrimination and earned praise and respect for its comeback performance in the Korean war. The Congressional Gold Medal is considered the most distinguished form of recognition that Congress, acting on behalf of a grateful Nation, can bestow upon an individual or group in recognition of outstanding and enduring achievement. As our legislation states: The highly decorated 65th Infantry Regiment is deserving of this award because of its ``pioneering military service, devotion to duty and many acts of valor in the face of diversity.'' Between 1950 and 1953, the regiment participated in some of the fiercest battles of the Korean war; and its toughness, courage, and loyalty earned the admiration of those who had previously harbored reservations about Puerto Rican soldiers based on stereotypes. One individual whose misconceptions were shattered was William Harris, who served as the regiment's commander during the early stages of the law. Harris recounts that he was reluctant to take command of the unit because, like many U.S. military leaders, he assumed that Puerto Rican soldiers were not as capable as other troops. Following the war, Harris recalled that his skeptical attitude did not survive first contact with the enemy and that, in fact, his experience ultimately led him to regard the men of the 65th as the best soldiers he had ever seen. Another individual who came to hold the 65th in high esteem was General Douglas MacArthur. In March 1951, after months of heavy engagements with the enemy in which the 65th played a critical role, General MacArthur wrote the following: The Puerto Ricans forming the ranks on the gallant 65th Infantry on the battlefields of Korea by valor, determination and a resolute will to victory give daily testament to their invincible loyalty to the United States. They are writing a brilliant record of achievement in battle, and I'm proud, indeed, to have them in this command. I wish that we might have many more like them. By the time fighting came to a close in Korea in July 1953, soldiers in the 65th had earned 10 Distinguished Service Crosses, about 250 Silver Stars, over 600 Bronze Stars, and nearly 3,000 Purple Hearts. As a collective, the regiment won numerous awards, including two Presidential Unit Citations, the Nation's highest unit-level recognition for extraordinary heroism. The unit's disproportionately high casualty rate underscored the fact that it had been serving on the front lines, face to face with the enemy at the very tip of the spear. In a 2010 obituary that appeared in The New York Times for 87-year- old Modesto Cartagena, one of the most decorated soldiers from the regiment, it was observed that in Korea: Puerto Rican soldiers surmounted not only the Communist enemy, but also prejudicial attitudes. This same point was made with particular eloquence in 2000 by Secretary Louis Caldera during a ceremony honoring the regiment when he said that the soldiers of the 65th were fighting to protect the people of South Korea, even as they struggled against the injustice in the ranks of the military that they loved and served so well. Mr. Speaker, in the face of unique challenges, the men of the 65th regiment served our Nation with great skill and tremendous grace. Their contributions to our country have been recognized in many forms. Streets and parks bear their name. Monuments and plaques memorialize their accomplishments. And cities and States have approved resolutions in their honor. I believe it is time that Congress pay tribute to the 65th, and so I ask my colleagues to join me in the effort to award the regiment with the Congressional Gold Medal.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, in November 2012, Puerto Rico held a referendum on its political status. The results demonstrated that a clear majority of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico want to end the island's current territory status, that a supermajority prefers statehood among the possible alternatives, and that--for the first time in history--more voters favor statehood than the current status. As I have remarked before, not a single one of my stateside colleagues in Congress would accept territory status for their own constituents. So they must recognize and respect that the American citizens of Puerto Rico no longer accept it either. I also trust that my colleagues who represent States will credit my constituents for aspiring to have the same rights and responsibilities as their constituents. Last week, the President took an important step. As part of the proposed budget the administration submitted to Congress, the Justice Department is seeking $2.5 million to conduct the first Federally sponsored vote on Puerto Rico's political status in the 115 years that the territory has been under the U.S. flag. The funding would be granted to Puerto Rico's Elections Commission to conduct objective voter education and a vote on ``options that would resolve Puerto Rico's future political status.'' Key congressional leaders in the House and the Senate, Republican and Democrat alike, have already issued statements of support for the President's action, calling it an appropriate response to the local referendum. Mr. Speaker, my constituents may not have a vote in the government that makes their national laws, but they do have a voice--and they made that voice heard loud and clear in November. A budget reflects one's priorities and values. I support the President's budget because it shows respect for the democratically expressed aspirations of the U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico. And it demonstrates a clear desire to move forward on this complex but critical issue. As the budget request states, the Federally sponsored vote is to be among options that would resolve Puerto Rico's political status. The only way to resolve the island's status is through statehood or national sovereignty. Puerto Rico cannot resolve its status by maintaining the same undemocratic status that my people have endured since 1898 and that they soundly rejected in November. The current status is the root cause of Puerto Rico's political, economic, and social problems, so it cannot also be the solution to those problems. In addition, the budget language clearly states that the Department of Justice shall not provide funding until it certifies that the ballot and voter education materials are consistent with the Constitution, basic laws, and policies of the United States. The purpose of this language is to ensure that the ballot does not include impossible status proposals that have been repeatedly declared unworkable as a matter of both law and policy by the Federal Government. I am pleased that the administration understands that true self-determination is a choice among options that can be implemented, not an exercise in wishful thinking. The President's request represents one path forward, but it is important to underscore that it is not the only path forward. In the coming weeks, I will introduce stand-alone legislation on the status issue that will both complement President Obama's request and reflect the undisputable fact that statehood won the November referendum. Puerto Rico stands in a far different place today than it did six months ago. A historic referendum was held, the President responded to the results, and Congress now has a responsibility to act. Those who seek democracy, equality, and progress for Puerto Rico are on the forward march, while those who support the failed status quo are in retreat. We drive the debate, while they merely react to the debate. And, in the end, mindful that the arc of history is long but that it bends towards justice, I am confident we will prevail.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, although I strongly support the TANF program, which provides payments to low-income families with children, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. Yesterday, I filed the budget-neutral amendment to H.R. 890. However, the Rules Committee reported a closed rule, thereby foreclosing debate, and a vote, on my amendment. My amendment sought to eliminate disparities that the territories face under TANF. Under current law, the territories are not eligible for TANF supplemental grants, contingency funds, and mandatory child care funds. Moreover, Federal law imposes an annual cap on the overall funding that each of the territories can receive under a variety of public assistance programs, including TANF. I have introduced legislation to repeal this funding cap, which has not been increased since 1996, and to make the territories eligible for TANF grants they do not presently receive. The amendment I filed yesterday was rooted in this legislation but modified to comply with PAYGO rules. Those who seek evidence of how Puerto Rico is hurt by its territory status need look no further than the unequal treatment my constituents receive under TANF and other safety-net programs. These programs are designed to help our Nation's most vulnerable residents, none of whom-- I must emphasize--earn enough to pay Federal income taxes. This treatment would be unprincipled under any circumstances, but it is particularly unfair when one considers that, last November, voters in Puerto Rico rejected the current status and expressed a desire for statehood, a status that would entitle them to equal treatment under all Federal laws. If Congress elects to undertake a comprehensive reauthorization of the TANF program, I hope my colleagues will work with me to eliminate the disparities that Puerto Rico faces under current law, especially in light of the fact that my constituents have rejected the political status that allows for such unequal treatment.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, today I'm introducing a modified version of bipartisan legislation I introduced last Congress. The bill would amend a provision in Federal law that applies only to Puerto Rico and that has harmed thousands of Medicare beneficiaries on the island. My legislation would eliminate this problem for future beneficiaries and provide appropriate financial relief to current beneficiaries who have been adversely affected. Senator Schumer is introducing a companion bill, and I want to thank him for his support on this issue. Most individuals become eligible to enroll in Medicare part A, which covers inpatient hospital care, when they turn 65. In every State and territory except Puerto Rico, individuals enrolled in part A are automatically enrolled in part B, which covers doctors' services and outpatient hospital care and requires the payment of a monthly premium. Individuals can opt out of part B if they don't want it. In Puerto Rico, by contrast, individuals enrolled in part A are not automatically enrolled in part B but, rather, must opt in to receive this coverage. The problem with the opt-in requirement is that the law requires individuals to elect part B coverage within a 7-month initial enrollment period or to pay a penalty to the Federal Government. The penalty is substantial--a 10 percent increase in the monthly part B premium for every year of delayed enrollment. It is also permanent, lasting as long as the individual has part B, which can be decades. Over the years, the responsible Federal agencies have done a poor job informing beneficiaries in Puerto Rico about the opt-in requirement and the consequences of late enrollment. Therefore, many of my constituents fail to realize they lack Part B until they get sick and need to visit a doctor, by which point significant time may have elapsed. To illustrate the repercussions, consider the standard Medicare Part B monthly premium of $105. An individual who enrolls 2 years late must pay a 20 percent surcharge--an additional $21 per month. Over 1 year, that is $252. Over 20 years, it is $5,000. The combination of the opt-in requirement and inadequate beneficiary education in Puerto Rico has led to consequences that are both severe and predictable. Puerto Rico has the lowest part B participation rate in the country--81 percent compared to the national average of 92 percent. There are least 130,000 island residents enrolled in part A but not part B. Without this coverage, beneficiaries have limited access to doctors' services and outpatient hospital care. If these individuals do eventually enroll in part B, as most will, the 7-month window will have closed and they will be required to pay a lifetime penalty. Moreover, there are at least 53,000 seniors or disabled individuals in Puerto Rico who are already paying a lifetime penalty for enrolling late in part B. Each year, in fact, island residents pay a total of over $7 million in late fees. This is profoundly unfair. Through no fault of their own, my constituents are required to forfeit money to the Federal Government they should be using to meet their basic needs and support their families. On the administrative front, I have worked hard with Senator Schumer to ensure that the relevant Federal agencies improve the educational materials provided to Puerto Rico beneficiaries, and I am pleased they have taken positive steps in response to our demands. But the only true solution to this problem is legislative. My bill would do three things: First, it would amend Federal law so that, going forward, beneficiaries in Puerto Rico are treated like their counterparts in every other jurisdiction, automatically enrolled in part B with the option to opt out of coverage; Second, to ease the burden on those who enrolled late in part B, usually with no understanding of the consequences of that choice, the bill would reduce the monthly penalty they are required to pay by 85 percent; Finally, to address those beneficiaries who are enrolled in part A but not B and who will pay a late penalty whenever they do enroll, the bill would authorize a special period during which those individuals could enroll in part B and pay a monthly surcharge that is 85 percent less than the penalty they would be subject to under current law. I look forward to working with my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to enact this much-needed bill into law. I should also mention that I was impressed with the State of the Union delivered by President Obama last evening, and I particularly support his call for democracy in America. But I remind, respectfully, both the President and all Americans that Puerto Rico has a status that is undemocratic. There are 3.7 million American citizens living in Puerto Rico who lack the most basic voting rights in a democracy. They cannot vote for the President, and they do not have voting representation in Congress. They have rejected this status, and the least that this Congress should do is give Puerto Rico the choice of joining the Union as a State or be treated as a sovereign nation.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will reintroduce two bills: the first to extend the SSI program to Puerto Rico, and the second to provide fair treatment to Puerto Rico under TANF. SSI provides assistance to blind, disabled, and elderly individuals with low incomes. Congress has chosen not to extend the program to Puerto Rico, which instead receives a limited block grant. The average SSI payment to residents of the States is $500 a month, while the average payment to residents of Puerto Rico is just $70. The TANF program provides payments to needy families with children. The territories are not eligible for certain TANF grants. Moreover, Federal law imposes a cap on the aggregate funding that a territory can receive under a combination of safety net programs, including TANF. My legislation would eliminate this cap, which has not been increased since 1996, and make the territories eligible for TANF grants they do not currently receive. Equality under TANF would mean at least $40 million in additional funding for Puerto Rico each year. Those who seek evidence of how Puerto Rico is harmed by its territory status need look no further than the treatment it receives under SSI and TANF. I will fight to secure parity under these two programs. But as long as Puerto Rico remains a territory, it will be an uphill battle. Mr. Speaker, Puerto Rico recently held a referendum on its political status. Under the current status, the 3.7 million American citizens living in Puerto Rico cannot vote for the leaders who make their national laws and are treated unequally under those laws, as the examples of SSI and TANF well illustrate. The ballot had two questions. On the first question, voters were asked if they wanted Puerto Rico to remain a territory. Of 1.8 million voters, 54 percent said they do not want the current status to continue, while 46 percent say they do. On the second question, voters were asked to express their preference among the alternatives to the current status. Of the 1.4 million people who chose an option, 61 percent voted for statehood, 33 percent for free association, and 5.5 percent for independence. The 834,000 votes for statehood on the second question exceeded the 828,000 for the current status on the first question. For the first time ever, more people in Puerto Rico want to be a state than to continue as a territory. True to form, defenders of the status quo have tried to distort the results of this referendum, making claims that are intellectually dishonest and divorced from the facts. These critics ignore the results of the first question and argue that, because close to 500,000 people left the second question blank, statehood did not prevail in the referendum. Let me be clear so there is no confusion. A majority of voters in Puerto Rico soundly rejected the current status. Among the three alternatives, statehood won a decisive victory, and statehood obtained a greater number of votes than any other status option, including the current status. Mr. Speaker, at yesterday's inauguration, President Obama invoked the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. President Obama then emphasized, while these truths may be self- evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. To uphold this Nation's core principles and values, the President and Congress must respond to the democratic expression of their fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, who have withdrawn their consent to a political status that makes them second-class citizens and who have made clear that they aspire to have full democratic rights and full equality under the law. None of my stateside colleagues in Congress would accept territory status for their own constituents, so they must recognize and they must respect that the American citizens I represent no longer accept it either.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, Puerto Rico recently held a plebiscite on its political status. I want to convey the results to the American public, describe their significance, and outline the next steps I will take. As background, Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory since 1898. The island is home to 3.7 million American citizens who cannot vote for President, are not represented in the Senate, and elect one nonvoting Member to the House. Federal law is supreme in Puerto Rico, but its residents are treated unequally under many Federal programs. Plebiscite voters were first asked whether they want Puerto Rico to remain a territory. Over 1.7 million people answered, which is about 75 percent of registered voters on the island. Fifty-four percent said they did not want the current status to continue, while 46 percent said they did. Voters were then asked to express their preference among the three viable alternatives to the current status: statehood, free association, and independence. Over 1.3 million people chose an option. Sixty-one percent voted for statehood, 33 percent voted for free association, and 5.5 percent voted for independence. In addition, 472,000 voters did not provide an answer. This plebiscite marked the first time voters were directly asked whether they want Puerto Rico to remain a territory. One of the two main political parties in Puerto Rico urged a ``yes'' vote. Nevertheless, the ``no'' vote won by eight points. Those voting ``no'' included statehood supporters, as well as advocates of independence and free association. These three groups are united in their opposition to the current status which is colonial in nature. It deprives Puerto Ricans of their right to choose their leaders who make their national laws and to equal treatment under those laws. Not one of my stateside colleagues in Congress would accept this response for their constituents. So they should respect that my constituents no longer accept it either. The rejection of territory status fundamentally changes the terms of this debate. After this vote, the question is not whether but when Puerto Rico will cease to be a territory and will have a fully democratic status. Defenders of the status quo may obstruct change in the short term, but in a democracy, the will of the people ultimately prevails. Let me turn to the second question in the plebiscite, asking voters which status should replace the current status. Of the 1.3 million people who voted for one of the three options, a supermajority chose statehood. Of critical importance, the 810,000 votes for statehood on the second question exceeded the 803,000 votes for the current status on the first question. For the first time, there are more people in Puerto Rico who want to become a State than who want to continue as a territory. This fact further undermines the democratic legitimacy of the current status. Some wish to downplay the results of the plebiscite by citing the voters who left the second question blank, but this argument does not withstand scrutiny. In our democracy, outcomes are determined by ballots properly cast. Power rests with the citizen who votes, not the one who stays home or who refuses to choose from among the options provided. Some voters may have left the second question blank simply because they prefer the current status to its alternatives. Those voters were able to vote for the current status in the first question. So their viewpoint was reflected in the plebiscite results. Others may have declined to answer because they were led to believe there was another option that should have been on the ballot, a best-of-all-worlds proposal called ``enhanced commonwealth.'' But each of the last four Presidential administrations has rejected this proposal, as have all key congressional leaders. A blank vote to protest the exclusion of an impossible status proposal is entitled to no weight. As Puerto Rico's representative in the U.S. Congress, I will work with my allies to ensure that the President and Congress take appropriate action in light of these results. The people of Puerto Rico have spoken, and I intend to make certain that their voice is heard loud and clear.